Ismael, Thanks for the feedback!
For 1, currently the sticky partitioner favors "available partitions." From my understanding, these are partitions that are not under-replicated. If that is not the same, please let me know. As for 2, I've switched to Optional, and the few tests I've run so far suggest the performance is the same. And for 3, I've added a javadoc to my next commit, so that should be up soon. Thanks, Justine On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:31 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Thanks for the KIP Justine. It looks pretty good. A few comments: > > 1. Should we favor partitions that are not under replicated? This is > something that Netflix did too. > > 2. If there's no measurable performance difference, I agree with Stanislav > that Optional would be better than Integer. > > 3. We should include the javadoc for the newly introduced method that > specifies it and its parameters. In particular, it would good to specify if > it gets called when an explicit partition id has been provided. > > Ismael > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 2:04 PM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Hello, > > This is the discussion thread for KIP-480: Sticky Partitioner. > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > > > > Thank you, > > Justine Olshan > > >
